viscousmemories

No, I'm not volunteering. However, as the supposed cause of the problem (in this hypothetical situation), it would be irrelevant whether or not I volunteered. Generally speaking, the death penalty isn't handed out to those who volunteer.

If it can be demonstrated in a court of law that beyond a reasonable doubt killing me would spare the lives of 10,000 innocents, I hope there is one among you with the courage to do what must be done for the good of society. Even though I may, ultimately, be found to be innocent. To me it's a matter of risk assessment.

In reference to the person (I can't remember right now) who said that we can't even prove that we exist with certainty... if we're looking for that level of proof in the law we might as well through our whole legal system out the window. As you pointed out, we can't prove anything with that level of certainty.

The Naked Mage

Please, please, PLEEEEEEEEEASE tell me you didn't just try to justify the death penalty with a comparison to a fantasy television series.

viscousmemories

The purpose of the big grin following my statement was to indicate that I was being facetious. I'm not really crazy, I just play crazy on TV.

Non-praying Mantis

I also support the death penalty, viscousmemories. And, in general, I have agreed with most of the things you have posted on the issue already.

However, (IMHO) I think that the death penalty is over-used in this country and that many innocents have died because of that unfortunate fact.

Personally, I think that the high homicide rate in the US has little to do with the presence or lack of a death penalty, but is much more likely the result of the easy access to handguns or to the burgeoning population problems we face. I also agree that the death penalty should not be used as a deterrent, but only as a means of removing the worst elements from society at large.

In the case in the OP, I think that the death penalty would be too strict to apply in this case. Both of the perpetrators are young, and their lives are not necessarily forfit now. I suggest an intesive program of behavioral modification so that the two perpetrators could be eventually returned to society. However, I also think that life in prison should not be used in this case. To me, life in prison without parole is practically the same as the death penalty. How can you be a benefit to society in prison?

NPM

Arvel Joffi

Do you see that you put your desire for revenge before the sanctity of human life?

viscousmemories

If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I don't support the DP for the sake of revenge or as a deterrent to other violent offenders, but as a deterrent to the one offender in question. Death has a way of deterring people from committing more violent crimes in the future.

As for the "sanctity of human life", I don't believe in such things.

viscousmemories

Absolutely. There is far too much evidence that the DP has been administered unfairly in this country to argue otherwise.

I'm with you on the handguns. I'm a big proponent of tighter gun control. (I keep forgetting to go see Bowling for Columbine, but I'm sure my opinion would only be reinforced by it.) I don't know about population, though. In and around big cities, sure, but I've driven from Michigan to California and back a couple of times, and there sure seems to be a LOT more empty space than necessary.

I don't know about this. It would be a persuasive argument if our prison system had the slightest interest in actually rehabilitating anyone, but since it doesn't, these kids are likely beyond help. I disagree, though, that one can't be a benefit to society while behind bars. They can always contribute research and ideas. On the issue of whether or not the DP is cruel and unusual, I will say again that I think that life imprisonment is more cruel and unusual than the DP.

Arvel Joffi

It's not a mythological trade, I'm not talking making another Jesus.

You may argue that it's an unfortunate statistic, that the innocent are bound to pay the pay part of the price, as in warfare. But what is the benefit of killing the guilty? I'm not talking about whether or not they deserve it, I'm talking about the benefit to society that comes from killing guilty murderers that also outweighs the protection of the innocent.

I'm talking about society playing god (something I thought most people would here bridle at) by deciding who lives and who dies. You addressed one part of my post. How about another.

What accuracy rating justifies the death penalty? "Beyond a reasonable doubt" might work for imprisonment, but for death?


Here. I'll make up a little fable.

In 1987, a seventeen year old girl is jogging through a park in the early morning hours. She is abducted by a man, taken to his home, and sexually tortured for a couple of days before he stabs her to death and dumps her body. She was a star athlete, a loving daughter, a model student and she loved her boyfriend very much.

The police pick up a suspect; he is tried for this unbelievably wretched crime, and sentenced to death by lethal injection. The family of the girl feels that they have a sense of closure, and the man got what he deserved. Justice is served.

The man picked up is bit of a loser, but he has a fiance and a child from a previous marriage. The fiance doubts everything that he has ever told her and doesn't know what to believe, his son believes that his father could never commit a crime like that and mourns the loss of his father. Most of his friends never write him.

Now, due the terrible inefficiency of our legal system and all the liberal mumbo jumbo of the appeals system, sixteen years later the man is still behind bars waiting to die. His 7 year old son is now 23, and his former fiance has all but forgotten him and moved on; but he has not forgotten her. What else does he have to occupy his mind? He has claimed his innocence the whole time.

Oops. An error was found. They do a little, maybe take a sample of the man's DNA and find out that it's impossible that he was the killer. They let him go and reopen the case. They find the real killer. This time they are sure of it. And this guy's going to pay the price! He will be executed!

ALTERNATE ENDING: The legal system moves swiftly and efficiently. The innocent man is executed ten years after his sentence. The case is closed.


Of course, this is an extreme situation, but I wanted to throw in some details and then ask again. What are the benfits of killing the guilty? How do they weigh against a story like that? A story that is fictional, but shares details with many actual events?

viscousmemories

Unless I'm missing something in your story, the question you are asking is, "what is the benefit to society of killing a known killer". To me, the answer is simple. Killing the killer could be (in a more efficient system) a more cost-effective (and, IMO, humane) method of ensuring that the killer never kills again.

I agree that as the DP is currently applied (in the US, anyway) this isn't the case. Even a short prison sentence in the US (say 2-4 years) deprives an individual of more of their life than I think is called for in most cases because of the inhumane treatment they receive. To make someone endure that for life, or as in death row inmates to make them endure that for 15 years, never knowing when/if the death penalty would actually be enacted, is IMO truly cruel and inhumane.

Arvel Joffi

I think you missed it. The death penalty for the guilty means the possible execution of the innocent. Let those imprisoned for long periods or for life (especially the innocent ones) decide for themselves if it's a fate worse than death. And if it truly is a fate worse than death, then is it doing a favor to criminals by killing them? Does it make me more cruel than you that I would want a murderer behind bars for life rather kill him because of the chance that he might be innocent and would then have time to at least save his own life by proving it?

arrgghh!